Impact of different soil textures on the growth and yield parameters of green gram using Potculture experiment (Vigna radiata) on different soils of Namakkal district

Introduction

Green gram (Vigna radiata), commonly known as mung bean, is an important legume crop cultivated in tropical and subtropical regions. It serves as a rich source of protein, vitamins, and minerals, contributing significantly to food and nutritional security, particularly in developing countries (Kumar et al., 2017) [6] . Its short duration, adaptability to diverse climatic conditions, and ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen make it a suitable component in crop rotations and intercropping systems, thereby enhancing soil fertility and promoting sustainable agriculture (Mula et al., 2020; Srinivas et al., 2018) [10,19] . In addition, its high market demand supports the economic stability of smallholder farmers (Choudhury et al., 2019) [2] . The productivity of green gram is influenced by agronomic practices and environmental factors. Planting date is one of the most critical factors, directly affecting plant height, pod number, branching, and yield potential (Rehman et al., 2009; Singh and Singh, 2011) [15,18] . Furthermore, variations in temperature, rainfall, and soil moisture considerably impact crop performance (Yadav et al., 2021) [21] . Globally, pulses are grown on about 85.40 million ha with a production of 87.40 million tonnes at an average yield of 1023 kg ha⁻¹. India accounts for 29.99 million ha of pulse cultivation, contributing 34% of global area and 6% of production. Among pulses, green gram ranks third after chickpea and pigeon pea, with 4.26 million ha area, 2.01 million tonnes production, and productivity of 472 kg ha⁻¹ compared to the global pulse average of 835 kg ha⁻¹ (Anonymous, 2019-20) [1] . Nutrient availability, especially nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, plays a pivotal role in plant metabolism and yield formation (Mathur et al., 2007) [9] . However, biological nitrogen fixation in mung bean is often limited during pre-nodulation and postflowering phases, resulting in poor pod setting and grain filling. This highlights the need for balanced nutrient management integrating inorganic fertilizers, organic amendments, and biofertilizers (Das and Jana, 2015) [3] . Farmyard manure (FYM) supplies both macroand micronutrients while improving soil physical and chemical properties, but its slow mineralization restricts immediate nutrient availability (Tilahun et al., 2013). [20] Thus, integrated use of organic and inorganic sources is essential for sustaining soil health and crop productivity.

Materials and Methods

A pot culture experiment was conducted at the Department of Soil Science, PGP College of Agricultural Sciences, Namakkal, during June-September 2024 to study the effect of soil texture on the growth and yield of green gram (Vigna radiata L.). Eight representative soils with different textural classes were collected from the surface layer (0-30 cm) of cultivated fields in Namakkal district, Tamil Nadu. The treatments included: clay loam (PGPCAS wetlands), sandy loam (Sendamangalam and Muthugapatti), silty loam (Belukurichi), loam (Kalappanayaikenpatti), sandy clay loam (Akkiampatti), clay loam (Melapatti), and silty clay loam (Bommasanudram). The experiment was laid out in a completely randomized design (CRD) with eight treatments replicated three times, making a total of 24 pots. Each earthen pot was filled with 10 kg of airdried, sieved soil. Seeds of green gram variety VBN 11 were used. Ten seeds were sown per pot and later thinned to five healthy seedlings at the 5-6 leaf stage. The seeds were treated with Azospirillum or Trichoderma viride at 4 g kg⁻¹ before sowing. Irrigation was applied as and when required, and no fertilizers were added to assess the sole influence of soil texture on crop performance.

Observations recorded

Growth parameters included plant height, number of leaves, leaf area, and biomass accumulation. Yield attributes measured were dry matter production, straw yield, number of pods per plant, seeds per pod, pod length, and grain yield per plant. The crop was harvested at physiological maturity, and data were statistically analyzed following CRD procedures.

Results and Discussion

Soil characteristics

The physical and chemical properties of the soil used in this trail are shown in Table 1. The texture of the soil collected from the wetlands of PGPCAS and Melapatti village is clay loam in nature, whereas it is sandy loam for the Red soils of the Sendamangalam village and Muthugapatti village. The soils obtained from Belukurichi village, Bommasanudram village, Akkiampatti village and Kalappanayaikenpatti village were sandy clay loam texture. The pH of the soils ranged from slightly alkaline to moderately alkaline (7.8-8.6) The salinity of the soils used in this investigation ranged from 0.31-0.98 dSm -1 , categorized as non-saline soil.

The organic carbon of the soils collected from wetlands of PGPCAS, Red soils of the Melapatti village, Red soils of Sendamangalam village and Muthugapatti village are low organic carbon in nature, whereas it was medium in the all other collected soils. The available nitrogen content of all the soils is categorized as low (<280 kg ha -1 ) in all the collected soils which have a moderate amount of available nitrogen (376 kg ha -1 ). The soils of all the treatments registered medium amount of available phosphorus, All the soils used in this experiment were high in available potassium. This could be attributed to balanced amounts of sand, silt and clay fractions, moderate quantity of available nitrogen, and high concentrations of organic carbon, phosphorus and potassium. Similar findings were realized by Shanmugasundaram and Savithri (2000) [17] . Sandy loam soils of Mettupalayam had low soil fertility, possibly due to high fractions of sand and unbalanced concentrations of NPK in the soils.

Plant height

The experimental results indicated that the plant height of green gram was significantly affected by different soil types. Among all the treatment plant height recorded Melapatti village Clay loam soil and Bommasanudram village Silty clay loam soil. Sarma et al 2000 [16] , find improvement in these growth parameters might have led to higher interception and absorption of radiant energy, resulting in greater photosynthesis and finally dry matter accumulation. [8] . Nandal and Singh (2005) [12] reported green gram & lentil are shade sensitive which results poor branching and pod settings in pulses.

No of pods per hill

Among the eight treatments the green gram pod length recorded Melapatti village Clay loam soil and T 4 for highest length of pods and T 1 and T 5 recorded lowest pod length. The yield reduction in pulses in intercropping with trees also reported by Pandey et al. (2002) [13] , Jama et al. (1991) [4] and Nandal & Hooda (2005) [11] . But Korwar et al. (1999) [5] in Faidherbia albida with pulses reported that grain yield is higher for green gram and black gram in lower canopy density than the monocrops and higher canopy density, which support that if canopy is properly managed the yield reduction in intercropping with trees can be reduced.

Number of seeds per pod

Among the eight treatments the green gram pod length recorded Melapatti village Clay loam soil and Bommasanudram village Silty clay loam soil for highest length of pods and T 1 recorded lowest pod length. This reason may be owing to their genetic variability. This finding is in corroborated with the findings of Kumar et al. (2013) [7] .

Hundred seed weight

Among the eight treatments the green gram pod length recorded Melapatti village Clay loam soil and T 8 for highest length of pods and all other treatment recorded medium weight of seeds

Plant dry weight

Among the eight treatments the green gram pod length recorded Melapatti village Clay loam soil and T 2 for highest length of pods and T 1 and T 5 recorded lowest pod length. Similar kind of results were reported by Pramanik et al. (2013) [14] . The results indicated that clay loam soil of Melapatti and silty clay loam soil of Bommasanudram significantly enhanced growth parameters such as clusters plant⁻¹ (9.55), pod length (7.9 cm), pods hill⁻¹ (56.0), and dry matter production (16.78 g). Yield attributes, including panicles plant⁻¹ (21.7), pod length hill⁻¹ (13.08 cm), and grain yield plant⁻¹ (9.60 g), were also highest in these soils, followed by sandy clay loam soils of Kalappanayaikenpatti.

Conversely, the red soils of Muthugapatti recorded the lowest performance. It can be concluded that clay loam soils of Melapatti are best suited for cultivating green gram, as they provide superior growth and yield attributes compared to other soil textures.

Summary and Conclusion

The present study revealed a significant variation in the growth and yield characteristics of Green gram. Among eight soils the wetlands of PGPCAS and Melapatti village is clay loam soils in low growth and yield attributes registered, whereas it is sandy loam for the Red soils of the Sendamangalam village and Muthugapatti village registered the medium growth and yield parameters. (Yoganathan. G et al 2025) [22] . The soils obtained from Belukurichi village, Bommasanudram village registered highest growth and yield of green gram as compare to Akkiampatti village and Kalappanayaikenpatti village were found moderate growth and yield. Similar findings were realized by Shanmugasundaram and Savithri (2000) [17] . Sandy loam soils of Mettupalayam had low soil fertility, possibly due to high fractions of sand and unbalanced concentrations of NPK in the soils. The study revealed that soil's physical and chemical characteris-tics, along with fertility status, influence the production of Green gram. The interaction of soil texture and crops can be utilized for maximum gain by technological interventions and good agricultural practices. The growth and yield parameters of Green gram irrespective verities were found maximum under sole cropping compared to intercropping with soil textures However, contrary the growth and yield parameters of Clay loam soil texture were found maximum pod yield of green gram.

References

1. Anonymous. Annual report of pulses statistics in India. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India; 2019-2020.
2. Choudhury PR, Das A, Sharma P, Ghosh PK, Nongkynrih JM. Impact of green gram cultivation on livelihood security of smallholder farmers. Legume Res. 2019;42(4):485-91.
3. Das A, Jana K. Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity of mung bean. J Food Legum. 2015;28(2):10812.
4. Jama B, Nair PKR, Kurira PW. Comparative growth performance of some multipurpose trees and shrubs in a semi-arid environment in Kenya. Agrofor Syst. 1991;13:2336.
5. Korwar GR, Prasad JVNS, Rao CAR, Ravi V. Performance of pulses under Faidherbia albida based agroforestry systems in semi-arid tropics. Indian J Agrofor. 1999;1(1):35-40.
6. Kumar R, Yadav SS, Singh A, Verma P. Mungbean: A promising crop for nutritional security. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6(6):170-8.
7. Kumar S, Singh R, Singh S. Genetic variability and heritability in mung bean. J Food Legum. 2013;26(1-2):736.
8. Manivasagaperumal R, Balamurugan P, Natarajan S. Effect of shade on growth and yield of green gram. Madras Agric J. 2011;98(1-3):30-3.
9. Mathur RS, Prasad R, Singh S. Nutrient management in pulses. Indian J Agron. 2007;52(1):45-8.
10. Mula MG, Kumar S, Khanna V. Enhancing productivity of mung bean through improved production technologies. Legume Res. 2020;43(2):185-92.
11. Nandal DP, Hooda RS. Growth and yield of pulses in intercropping systems. Ann Agric Res. 2005;26(3):345-9.
12. Nandal DP, Singh J. Effect of shading on growth and yield of lentil and mung bean. J Food Legum. 2005;18(1):47-9.
13. Pandey CB, Singh AK, Sharma DK. Tree-crop interaction in agroforestry systems of central India. Agrofor Syst. 2002;56:143-50.
14. Pramanik K, Kundu C, Roy P. Growth and yield of mung bean as influenced by different soil textures. Legume Res. 2013;36(5):449-54.
15. Rehman A, Ali A, Waseem M, Tahir M, Ayub M. Influence of planting date on green gram. Pak J Agric Sci. 2009;46(2):106-10.
16. Sarma AK, Hazarika S, Das K. Physiological basis of growth and yield variation in pulses. Indian J Plant Physiol. 2000;5(3):201-4.
17. Shanmugasundaram S, Savithri P. Soil fertility status of red soils and crop productivity. J Indian Soc Soil Sci. 2000;48(2):268-72.
18. Singh AK, Singh SP. Effect of sowing dates on growth and yield of green gram. Legume Res. 2011;34(1):42-5.
19. Srinivas K, Reddy VR, Rao KV. Productivity and profitability of mung bean in intercropping systems. Legume Res. 2018;41(4):517-23.
20. Tilahun G, Nigussie D, Wondimu B. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on growth and yield of green gram. J Agric Res Dev. 2013;3(2):23-9.
21. Yadav R, Singh V, Meena S. Effect of climatic variation on mung bean productivity. J Agrometeorol. 2021;23(2):2106.
22. Yoganathan G, Gopinath VT, Ezhilarasi, Gausika G, Gobika S, Gokul K, et al. Effect of different nutrient sources on growth, yield parameters and nutrient dynamics of green gram using pot experiment and RDF in Namakkal district of Tamil Nadu. Int J Res Agron. 2025;8(8):623-628.